CASE OF MANSUR YALÇIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF MANSUR YALÇIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

(Application no. 21163/11)

JUDGMENT

(Extracts)

STRASBOURG

16 September 2014

FINAL

16/02/2015

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Mansur Yalçin and Others v. Turkey,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Guido Raimondi, President,
Işıl Karakaş,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Egidijus Kūris,
Robert Spano,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 8 July 2014,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 21163/11) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by fourteen Turkish nationals, Mr Mansur Yalçın, Mr Namık Sofuoğlu, Ms Serap Topçu, Mr Ali Yüce, Mr Ali Kaplan, Ms Eylem Onat Karataş, Mr Hüseyin Kaya, Ms Sevinç Ilgın, Mr İsmail Ilgın, Mr Cafer Aktan, Mr Hakkı Saygı, Mr Kemal Kuzucu, Mr Yüksel Polat and Mr Hasan Kılıç (“the applicants”), on 2 February 2011.

2. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr N. Sofuoğlu and Mr S. Topçu, lawyers practising in İstanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

3. The applicants alleged, in particular, that the manner in which the compulsory religious culture and ethics classes were taught in primary and secondary schools infringed their rights under the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They further complained of a violation of Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention.

4. On 26 October 2012 the Government were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5. The applicants live in Istanbul. They are followers of the Alevi faith. Mr Mansur Yalçın, Mr Yüksel Polat and Mr Hasan Kılıç all had school-age children. More specifically, E. Polat (Yüksel Polat’s daughter), who completed her secondary schooling in 2007, G. Kılıç (Hasan Kılıç’s son), who completed his secondary schooling in 2010, and T. Yalçın (Mansur Yalçın’s daughter), who completed her secondary schooling in 2010, were attending a secondary educational establishment at the relevant time.

Mr Sofuoğlu stated that, at the time the domestic proceedings were instituted, his son and daughter had completed the second cycle of secondary education and were in higher education.

Ms Serap Topçu and Ms Eylem Onat Karataş, meanwhile, stated that they had attended “compulsory religious culture and ethics classes” at school and that their young children – whose ages they did not specify – would likewise have to attend those classes when they went to school.

6. In Turkey, school attendance is compulsory for all children between the ages of 6 and 13. For the first four years, children attend primary school (Years 1 to 4). The following four years are spent in the first cycle of secondary school (Years 5 to 8). After that, pupils spend a further three or four years in school, depending on the subjects chosen, in an upper secondary school (lise).

A. Domestic proceedings

1. Applicants’ request to the administrative authorities

7. On 22 June 2005 the applicants asked the Ministry of Education to initiate a consultation process with Alevi faith leaders with a view to overhauling the syllabus for religious culture and ethics classes and including Alevi culture and philosophy.

They also requested the introduction of compulsory training for teachers of these classes and the setting-up of a monitoring and supervisory mechanism. They cited in that regard extracts from monitoring reports prepared by the European Commission which were critical of the content and the compulsory nature of the religious culture and ethics classes.

8. In its reply of 15 July 2005 the Religious Education Department of the Ministry of Education (“the Department”) stated that, in the textbooks used in religious culture and ethics lessons in the primary cycle, priority was given to the teaching of ethical and religious values common to society as a whole. As to the content of the classes at secondary level, the Department stated that, while respecting the same principles, the syllabus took a supra‑denominational approach (mezhepler üstü) and that the religious culture and ethics textbooks also presented other understandings of Islam. It added that the syllabus for the 2005/06 school year had been drawn up on the basis of this supra-denominational approach, which according to the Department was centred on the Koran, did not favour any particular branch of Islam and respected the principle of secularism. The Department also mentioned that the syllabus for Year 9 (the first year of upper secondary school) featured public figures who had been important in shaping the Turkish understanding of Islam, while the syllabus for Year 11 explained the different interpretations of Islam, and the Year 12 syllabus contained a wealth of information on Alevi-Bektashi (bektaşi) culture. In the same letter, the Department further specified that teacher training had been introduced ahead of the entry into effect of the new syllabus. Lastly, it observed that topics relating to the Alevi faith had been included in the religious culture and ethics syllabus for secondary schools for the 2005/06 school year.

2. Proceedings brought by the applicants in the Administrative Court

9. After receiving the letter from the Department rejecting their proposal, the applicants and 1,905 other people challenged the Department’s decision in the Ankara Administrative Court. Referring to the Court’s case‑law on the subject, they argued that the teaching provided in religious culture and ethics lessons could not be said to satisfy the criteria of objectivity and pluralism. In support of their argument they presented six reports drawn up by various experts who had studied the textbooks used for the subject. Referring to the findings of those reports, they maintained that the textbooks in question provided instruction based on a “Sunni” interpretation of Islam and could by no means be regarded as neutral vis‑à‑vis other interpretations of Islam. They relied in particular on Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

3. Expert report requested by the Administrative Court

10. The Ankara Administrative Court appointed of its own motion a committee of three experts tasked with drawing up a report on the teaching provided in the context of religious culture and ethics classes.

11. On an unspecified date a nine-page report written by a professor of Kalam (Islamic religious studies), a professor of education and a professor of religious sociology was added to the case file and sent to the applicants. The report stated in substance as follows.

(i) For the purposes of the study the experts had examined the religious culture and ethics textbooks used in schools by Years 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 as authorised by the Ministry of Education. The religious culture and ethics syllabus for primary schools had been adopted by a decision of 28 December 2006 of the Supreme Council for Education attached to the Ministry of Education and had been introduced in the 2007/08 school year to replace the previous syllabus of 19 September 2000. The new secondary syllabus had come into effect following a decision of 31 March 2005. The textbooks criticised by the applicants had therefore been prepared under the earlier syllabus.

(ii) The textbooks were structured around three main themes: religious culture, ethics and national and spiritual values. The parts concerning ethics and national and spiritual values covered topics common to all citizens. The part concerning religious culture had been drafted using a supra‑denominational approach centred on fundamental concepts such as the Koran and the Sunnah (Sünnet), and did not favour any particular branch of Islam.

(iii) The syllabus did not give precedence to any particular faith. On the contrary, the textbooks reflected a supra-denominational approach. The syllabus observed the principle of objectivity and did not give priority to any faith or any religious group. The textbooks and the syllabus were designed to deliver information on Islam using pedagogical methods.

(iv) The use of the religious culture and ethics textbooks written by M. Şahinbaş and A. Kabakçı for Years 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 had been discontinued in the 2007/08 school year following the changes to the syllabus. They had been replaced by new textbooks written by Ministry of Education committees. The same was true of the textbooks for upper secondary schools, which had been replaced in the 2006/07 school year. In drawing up the new syllabus implemented in the 2006/07 school year, the Ministry of Education had taken full account of the points raised by the applicants.

(v) Unlike the former syllabus, the new syllabus covered topics such as the principles of the Alevi faith, the worship, mystical philosophy, ethical understanding, prayers (niyaz) and collective prayer (cem) of followers of the Alevi faith, and also Alevi principles and rites such as the twelve religious services (12 hizmet), the path to God, the Hizir and Muharram fasts (Hızır ve Muharrem orucu), the four gates (4 kapɪ) and forty levels (40 makam), the three Sunnahs (3 sünnet) and the seven obligations (7 farz). In the course of preparing the school textbooks and choosing the topics relating to the Alevi faith, worship and ethics, extensive recourse had been had to publications written by prominent Alevis.

(vi) While the teaching of religion as such took account of the precepts of the Koran and the life of the prophet Mohammed, the other interpretations of Islam were covered in the context of cultural information. Hence, the textbooks provided information on Alevism, Jafarism (caferilik), Hanafism (hanefilik), Shafism (şafilik), Shiism (şiilik) and the Sufi movements. They also provided teaching on the foundations of Islam and in particular the five prayers, pilgrimage, charity and sacrifice. Around thirty pages were devoted to the Alevi faith.

(vii) In conclusion, the report recommended the addition of references to certain aspects of the Alevi faith, for instance festivals, and specified that the cemevi was a place of cultural exchange for Alevis rather than a place of worship.

4. Reports prepared at the applicants’ request and submitted to the Administrative Court

12. On 14 September 2009 the applicants contested the expert report and filed additional pleadings. They submitted that the teaching that was provided focused on the Sunni interpretation of Islam and that the Alevi faith was presented in summary fashion. Providing examples, they argued that much of the information presented contained errors. In particular, they claimed that the symbols linked to their faith had been ignored and that the mosque was presented as the Muslim place of worship. They asserted that certain Sunni Muslim rituals, namely the prayers or Salat (namaz) and ablutions (abdest) were imposed and were presented according to the Sunni interpretation of Islam. They also complained that the experts had denied that the cemevi was the Alevis’ place of worship. They criticised the Year 5 textbook, in which the main rituals of Islam were reportedly listed as Salat, fasting, pilgrimage and charity, arguing that the information provided was confined to the Sunni interpretation of Islam, whereas, in their view, a theological debate was under way as to how Salat should be performed. Lastly, they alleged that the textbooks in question treated the Alevi faith as a tradition or culture rather than as a fully-fledged faith.

5. The Administrative Court judgment

13. In a judgment of 1 October 2009 the Ankara Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ claims on the ground that the refusal of their request by the respondent authorities had conformed to the relevant legislation. The court referred to the findings of the report on the teaching of religious culture and ethics (see paragraph 11 above), taking the view that religious subjects were dealt with using a supra-denominational approach in the textbooks for both the old and the new syllabus. The court considered that the principle of State neutrality had thus been respected and that the new topics had been chosen taking into account the country’s educational needs.

6. Appeal on points of law

14. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the first‑instance judgment.

15. In a judgment of 13 July 2010, which was served on 2 August 2010, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal on points of law and upheld the first-instance judgment, which it considered to be in conformity with both the procedure and the law.

B. Information provided by the parties

1. The Government

16. The Government provided the following additional information.

Between June 2009 and March 2011 a large number of workshops (çalıştay) had been held in Turkey, attended by leaders of the Alevi‑Bektashi and other faiths, with the aim of examining issues concerning the Alevi community. The topics covered included the teaching of religious culture and ethics in primary and secondary schools. Following these workshops it was decided that the Ministry of Education would overhaul the existing syllabus. A special meeting was organised, chaired by the Secretary of State and attended by the leaders of different faith groups in Turkey and Ministry of Education experts. It was decided at the meeting that the process of overhauling the syllabus would be overseen by the Ministry’s Religious Education Department.

17. A series of meetings was held within the Religious Education Department, designed to allow an exchange of views and to identify the wishes of the different faiths. The meetings were attended by Alevi‑Bektashi, Jafari and Alawi (nusayri) leaders and examined the current syllabus and textbooks. In addition, on the basis of the findings of a report prepared by the Alevi-Bektashi, Jafari and Alawi representatives, the syllabus and the textbooks were amended in order to respond – in large part, in the Government’s submission – to the concerns expressed by the leaders of those communities. The new religious culture and ethics textbooks were introduced at the start of the 2011/12 school year. After overhauling the syllabus the national authorities organised training seminars throughout the country for teachers of the subject.

18. In Turkey, pupils belonging to the Jewish and Christian faiths are exempted from religious culture and ethics classes in accordance with decision no. 1 of 9 July 1990 of the Supreme Council for Education. The latter decided on 25 June 2012 and 14 August 2012 to draw up a religious instruction syllabus specifically designed for Jewish and Christian pupils in primary and secondary schools. To that end, a meeting was held in Istanbul on 10 and 11 September 2012 with Christian spiritual leaders. The national authorities also appointed a university-based coordinator to oversee preparation of the syllabus. At the meetings concerning the new syllabus it was made clear that the spiritual leaders of the faiths concerned were free to design the programme of religious instruction in accordance with their own beliefs, lifestyles and traditions. Accordingly, the Christian representatives sent a draft syllabus to the Ministry of Education and the Jewish representatives informed the Ministry that their syllabus was being finalised. The draft syllabuses will be discussed at a meeting to be attended by representatives of the faiths concerned with a view to adoption of a final version.

19. The Government produced before the Court a document drawn up by the Religious Education Department of the Ministry of Education. According to this document, those responsible for preparing the syllabus had taken care in drawing it up not to favour a particular faith but instead to adopt a supra-denominational approach. The document also stated that the wishes of the different religious groups had been taken into account and that the children of Alevi citizens were not forced to follow a particular religious teaching or practice. It further specified that the new syllabus had been adopted on 30 December 2010 and had been introduced at the start of the 2011/12 school year.

The document was accompanied by a summary of the new course content and extracts from the textbooks dealing with the various interpretations of Islam. It explained, among other things, that topics relating to the Alevi-Bektashi, Jafari and Alawi communities had been incorporated in the syllabus and textbooks in question. Those topics are set out below.

The textbooks for Years 4 and 5 proposed activities related to the sayings of Ali (son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed). They also contained passages concerning the importance attached to cleanliness by Haci Bektaş Veli (a leading Sufi and founder of the Bektashi brotherhood in the fourteenth century). Under the heading “Different examples of prayers in our culture”, they dealt with the various interpretations of certain surahs and Alevi-Bektashi prayers. They also referred to the significance of certain days and nights in that faith.

The Year 6 textbook dealt with the five compulsory prayers (namaz) and the call to prayer (ezan) and also took Jafari practice into account. It further referred to the role and importance of Ali in Islam. Lastly, it presented leading figures like Ali er-Riza, Ahmet Yesevi and Haci Bektaş Veli, who had contributed to the adoption of Islam in Turkey.

In the textbook for Year 7, an item concerning the Muharram fast had been added to the chapter on fasting, which also contained an account of the Battle of Karbala. The chapter entitled “Different interpretations within Islam” explored the Alevi-Bektashi faith. This last section addressed the following topics: the different types of cem, the twelve religious services, the semah[1], the spiritual brotherhood (musahiplik), prayers and the Hizir fast. These topics were also covered in the Year 12 textbook.

Lastly, the textbooks for Years 9, 10 and 11 presented important figures in the Alevi-Bektashi faith and, in different passages, highlighted the role and importance of Ali in Islam.

2. The applicants

20. The applicants submitted three documents in particular to the Court. The first was a research report compiled for the “Educational reform initiative” (Eğitim Reformu Girişimi) by Ms M. Yıldırım, an expert on religious freedom and director of the “Initiative for freedom of religion and beliefs in Turkey”. The report is entitled “An assessment of the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the 2011/12 school year” (2011-2012 Öğretim Yılında Uygulanan Din Kültürü ve Ahlak Bilgisi Dersi Programına İlişkin bir Değerlendirme).

After analysing the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the 2011/12 school year, the expert went on to state as follows:

“Syllabus for Years 1 to 8

If we compare the new syllabus for religious culture and ethics with the previous one, we can see that the changes made do not amount to a thorough overhaul based on principles such as impartiality and objectivity. The changes consisted mainly in adding some new information and moving a few chapters. Among the additions, a long chapter is now devoted to the different interpretations of Islam and certain traditions within Islam (primarily the Alevi-Bektashi and Jafari traditions), including terminology, practices and references.

As to the overall content in terms of the teaching goals and the areas covered, the values and concepts dealt with in the syllabus remain close to those in the previous syllabus and no major changes have been made. Reading materials have been added at the end of each chapter in order to reinforce what has been learnt. In addition, certain principles are spelled out, for instance ‘Pupils shall not be compelled to follow religious practices’ and ‘Pupils shall not be required to learn verses or hadiths by heart or to copy out prayers and surahs other than those contained in the textbooks’ ...

Year 7

... The chapter devoted to the different interpretations of Islam in the old Year 8 syllabus ... is now on the syllabus for Year 7. As to the content, the following topics have been added: ‘The Sufi interpretations of Islam ...’ and ‘The fundamental concepts in the Alevi-Bektashi tradition’. In the same chapter, the notion of a ‘branch’ (mezhep) has been replaced by that of ‘religious interpretation’. With regard to the Alevi-Bektashi tradition, it is stated explicitly that only the following concepts will be covered: ‘cem, cemevi, rizalik, kul hakki, the twelve services, semah, spiritual brotherhood, gülbenk and the Hizir fast’ and that ‘the cemevi is to be considered as the place where the cem takes place’, thereby avoiding stating that the cemevi is a place of worship.

 ...

Syllabus for Years 9 to 12

If we compare the new religious culture and ethics syllabus with the previous one, we can see that, as for the other year groups, the changes made do not amount to a thorough overhaul based on principles such as impartiality and objectivity, but consist in a number of additions and the moving around of a few chapters.

...

Year 12

...

We can observe that, as regards the acquisition of knowledge through revelation (vahiy) and through reason, the content of the chapter headed ‘Sufi interpretations in Islamic thought’ has been enhanced. [It covers topics] such as ‘The role and importance of ethics in Sufi thought ...’, ‘Different types of cem’, ‘Concepts such as semah, spiritual brotherhood and gülbenk’, ‘The importance of the month of Muharram and of Ashura in our culture’ and ‘The nusayri’ ... The activities include one entitled ‘Learning about the Sufi interpretations’, and it is stated that pupils will be asked to research one of the following topics: the yesevilik, the mevlevilik and the Alevi-Bektashi faith ... . It is [also] stated that topics such as ‘The role of Haci Bektaş Veli in the Bektashi understanding and in the development of the Alevi faith’ will be covered and that ‘in terms of its fundamental underpinnings, the nusayri faith is structured around the Koran ...’.

...

... Can the syllabus for the compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics be said to be compatible with the Toledo principles?

An analysis of the course content shows that it combines elements of ‘classes on a given religion from the perspective of that religion’, ‘classes providing limited, but relatively objective information on other religions’, ‘classes in ethics rooted in a particular religion’ and ‘classes on Islamic-Turkish civilisation’ rather than classes on religions. In that connection, the syllabus does not state that the course comprises classes on religions; on the contrary, it is stated that it is a course of ‘religious instruction. In Article 24 of the Constitution, the term used is ‘instruction in religious culture’, referring to a knowledge of religious culture drawing on a variety of sources, as opposed to ‘religious instruction’ (see Supreme Administrative Court judgments E.2006/6 – K.2007/481, 28 December 2007, and E.2007/679 – K.2008/1461, 29 February 2008). Moreover, the same Article contains another provision dealing specifically with ‘religious instruction’. In the syllabus, the word ‘religion’ is commonly used to denote Islam, but is sometimes, confusingly, used in the general sense.

The most significant changes in the new syllabus compared with the previous one lie in the addition of terminology, practices and references relating to other interpretations or traditions within Islam. One does not need to be an expert in theology to conclude that the approach, structure and priorities have remained the same, with the diversity existing within Islam being reflected only in a few additions to the previous syllabus.

Brief analysis in the light of the Toledo principles

According to the Toledo principles, teaching about religions should be sensitive, balanced, inclusive, non-doctrinal, impartial, and based on human rights principles relating to freedom of religion or belief. ...

Non-doctrinal

The changes made to the syllabus and textbooks are not such as to alter the doctrinal nature of the classes. The expressions ‘our religion’, ‘our divine scripture’ and ‘our prophet’ are used frequently and are taught as religious dogma.

Impartial

The State’s duty of impartiality is incompatible with any power on the State’s part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs. However, the fact of stating that the cemevi is a place where the cem is practised amounts to an assessment. The rejection of the generally accepted idea among Alevis that the cemevi is a place of worship is incompatible with the State’s duty of impartiality ...

...

Assessment of the content in the light of the legal requirements – the State, parents and children

... The fact that, at both primary and secondary level, religious culture and ethics classes are compulsory and include the dogmas and practices of the Muslim faith, and that the children are assumed to be followers of that faith, is liable to result in situations of conflict with parents’ religious and philosophical beliefs... Likewise, the use of expressions such as ‘our religion’, ‘my religion’, ‘our sacred book the Koran’ and ‘our prophet’, and the teaching of the surahs of the Koran and the practice of Salat (namaz) mean that parents who do not subscribe to the Muslim faith may find their children receiving instruction other than that which they wish to pass on to them. Furthermore, the fact that the surahs of the Koran and the practice of Salat are regarded as [knowledge] to be acquired means that children are liable to face a conflict of allegiances with the beliefs handed down by their parents, in breach of the individual’s right not to be compelled to act in a manner running counter to his or her own convictions.

...

In sum, the changes made to the syllabus for religious culture and ethics are not sufficient to put an end to the violation of parents’ right to ensure [their children’s] education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions ...

Conclusion

Looking at the changes implemented in 2011/12, there has been some progress towards the desired goal, which is to ensure pluralist religious teaching, in so far as the compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics reflect the diversity existing within Islam in Turkey. These classes have also maintained their particular feature of dispensing both ‘teaching of the Muslim religion’ and ‘teaching of other religions’...”

21. The second document provided by the applicants was a study entitled “Issues regarding religion classes” (Din Dersi Sorunu), prepared on 23 January 2013 by M.K. Kılıç, a teacher of religious culture and ethics and education secretary of the teachers’ trade union Eğitim-İş. The parts of the study relevant to the present case read as follows:

“... From the fourth year of the primary cycle until the end of upper secondary school, the syllabus for the classes in religious culture and ethics has been devised on the basis of the Sunni-Matrudi-Hanafite understanding of Islam. Either no instruction is given concerning other branches of Islam or these are considered as dissident branches (aykırı görüş). The main focus is always on Sunni Islam. Hence, the syllabus has not been prepared using a supra-denominational approach, but on the basis of a wholly denominational one (mezhepçi).

...

In the textbooks, the Alevi faith is not regarded as a branch of Islam (mezhep). The syllabus deals only with the cultural aspects and folk traditions.

In the textbook used in Year 7, in the chapter entitled “Interpretations within Islamic thought”, the Alevi faith is not regarded either as an interpretation of the faith (itikadi mezhep) or as a theological interpretation (fikhi yorum). It is described instead as a Sufi interpretation, with the result that it is not seen as one of the main branches like Sunnism or Shiism. In the syllabus for Years 7 and 12, the Alevi faith is placed in the same category as the Sunni brotherhoods (Sünni tarikatlar), that is to say, in a sub‑category vis-à-vis the main branches, which reduces its value.

From both a faith-based and a theological perspective, however, the Alevi faith is an independent branch of Islam. [It is true that], ... in the Alevi faith, the mystical and Sufi interpretation predominates. However, presenting this faith solely as a Sufi entity does not reflect the reality...

In sum, in the syllabuses and textbooks for the classes in religious culture and ethics:

1. The Alevi faith is not considered as a branch of Islam in its own right, unlike Sunnism and Shiism.

2. Directly or indirectly, pupils are taught that the Alevi faith is a Sufi movement and that its rites are merely cultural and folk rituals rather than fundamental rites of Islam.

3. The Alevi faith is not recognised as a branch (mezhep) of Islam; the tenets of its faith and beliefs are disregarded.

4. Likewise, the following facts are not acknowledged: the cem, which is the fundamental prayer of the Alevi faith, is the equivalent of the Salat (namaz) of the Sunnis and Shiites. The Alevis’ Muharram fast is the equivalent of Ramadan. The cemevi, the Alevi place of worship, is the equivalent of the Sunni or Shiite mosque. The semah is not a cultural or folk ritual, nor is it a zikr (or dhikr) ceremony (a ritual prayer or litany practised by the Sufi brotherhoods); it is actually a form of prayer.

5. The saz or bağlama is a sacred instrument for Alevis. The Alevi faith is inseparable from [this instrument]. ...

If the syllabus and textbooks for this course are revised in a manner which takes account of these factors, the issue as regards Alevis [in relation to this course] can be considered to have been largely resolved.”

22. The third document was a study entitled “Compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics: between pluralist ‘supra-denominationalism’ and majority confessionalism”. It was prepared in January 2013 by A. Yaman, professor at Abant İzzet Baysal University and Chair of Political History, who is also an Alevi leader, more specifically a dede (religious and spiritual leader). The parts of relevance to the present case read as follows:

“...The syllabus for the compulsory classes poses the greatest difficulties for Alevis, as the course content and the training given to the teachers are not compatible with the Alevi approach. The teaching is dispensed by staff whose background is in Sunni beliefs and culture and who are graduates of the imam-hatip (imam and preacher) schools or the faculties of theology, where they follow a curriculum [in line with Sunni beliefs and culture]. Such an arrangement may be regarded as suited to the needs of Sunni citizens ... but it can hardly be acceptable for the same syllabus to be taught to Alevis. It is clear from recent developments that the argument that the course content is ‘supra-denominational’ is false. In that connection, why is it that the textbooks which in 2005 were supposedly ‘supra-denominational’ were amended in 2008 and 2011, with passages on the Alevis being added following the meetings? One particular – and admittedly perfectly respectable – school of religious thought predominates in this course, and the Alevi faith is not adequately represented. Alevi children are caught in a stranglehold between the information they receive at school and that which is handed down by their families. Furthermore, problems arise with certain teachers ...

...

Taking into account the proposals made by the commission [responsible for revising the content of the syllabus] which was set up following the workshops on Alevi issues (Alevi calıştayları) – and some of whose meetings I myself attended – a collection of the proposed amendments to the textbooks was sent to the Minister of State. [Subsequently] ..., some changes were made to the textbooks for Years 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 published in 2011. However, if we compare the proposals and the changes actually made, we can see that the number of changes is not nearly sufficient, and that a strategy was adopted that was restrictive and/or sought to exclude certain elements (dışlayıcı). This is naturally a source of dismay. [I think it is fair to say that] the fact that the basic Alevi form of worship, the cem, is presented in the Year 7 and Year 12 textbooks under the section devoted to religious interpretations rather than in the chapter on worship clearly demonstrates that [the syllabus] was not devised on the basis of a supra-denominational approach and that the textbooks were written from a specific perspective.

...

...The commission’s proposal to recognise ‘the cemevi [as] a place of worship’ was disregarded ... Moreover, it is interesting to note that, whereas Salat is explained in detail using drawings [in the Year 5 textbook] and that, under the heading ‘Learning about the mosque’ [the different parts of the mosque] are illustrated with drawings and poems, no description is provided of any Alevi institution or rule. In these compulsory classes, Alevi pupils can learn about the main forms of worship only according to the Sunni understanding of Islam... Although the commission presented proposals concerning the inclusion of topics relating to the cem and the other Alevi forms of worship [in the chapter on worship of the Year 6 textbook], the approach adopted consists in stating that ‘worship takes the form of Salat’... The Alevi faith is presented in the context of the spiritual brotherhoods and Sufism, including the naksilik and kadirilik brotherhoods, etc., instead of featuring in the chapter on beliefs and worship. [Hence] the cemevi is presented merely as a gathering place for the brotherhoods ...”

23. The Government expressed doubts as to the objectivity and impartiality of the expert reports submitted by the applicants. They maintained in particular that the documents entitled “An assessment of the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the 2011/12 school year” and “Issues regarding religion classes”, submitted by the applicants, were not the work of academics.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

A. The Constitution

24. Article 2 of the Constitution reads as follows:

“The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social State based on the rule of law that is respectful of human rights in a spirit of social peace, national solidarity and justice, adheres to the nationalism of Atatürk and is underpinned by the fundamental principles set out in the Preamble.”

25. Article 24 of the Constitution, in so far as relevant to the present case, reads as follows:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, belief and religious conviction.

Acts of worship, religious services, and ceremonies shall be conducted freely, provided that they do not violate the provisions of Article 14.

No one shall be compelled to participate in prayers or in religious ceremonies and rites or to disclose his or her religious beliefs and convictions; no one shall be censured or prosecuted for his religious beliefs or convictions.

Education and instruction in religion and ethics shall be provided under the supervision and control of the State. Instruction in religious culture and ethics shall be a compulsory part of the curriculum of primary and secondary schools. Other religious education and instruction shall be a matter for individual choice, with the decision in the case of minors being taken by their legal guardians.

...”

B. The State Education Act (Law no. 1739)

26. Section 12 of the State Education Act (Law no. 1739) provides:

“Secularism is the basis of Turkish State education. Religious culture and ethics shall be among the compulsory subjects taught in primary and upper secondary schools and schools of an equivalent level.”

C. Decision no. 1 of 9 July 1990 on exemptions

27. On 9 July 1990 the Supreme Council for Education attached to the Ministry of Education adopted a decision on religious culture and ethics classes and the arrangements for exemption from them. It stated:

“Following the proposal by the Ministry of Education, pupils of Turkish nationality who belong to the Christian or Jewish religions and who attend primary and secondary schools, with the exception of schools for minorities, may be exempted from attending the classes in religious culture and ethics provided that they affirm their adherence to those religions. If, however, such pupils wish to attend these classes, they must submit a written request signed by their legal guardian.”

D. The teaching of religion in Turkey

28. Prior to the entry into force of the 1982 Constitution, participation in religious studies classes was optional in Turkey and was a matter for parents to decide as they saw fit. Article 24 of the 1982 Constitution made religious culture and ethics classes compulsory throughout the State education system, from the fourth year of primary school up to the final year of upper secondary school.

29. In 2012 two optional religious classes, entitled “The Life of Mohammed” and “The Koran”, were introduced in primary and secondary schools under Law no. 6287, enacted on 30 March 2012. A third optional course entitled “Basic religious knowledge, Islam 1-2” was added later.

30. A form of religious instruction is organised in most parts of Turkey in the form of courses on the Koran (Kuran Kursu). These are not part of the Ministry of Education’s curriculum but are run under the auspices of the Religious Affairs Office, the senior authority responsible for overseeing the management of Islamic affairs in Turkey.

III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS

31. For an overview of the main relevant international materials and a comparative-law study, see the judgment in Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey (no. 1448/04, §§ 25-34, 9 October 2007).

European Committee against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)

32. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance expressed its view on the teaching of religion in schools, in General policy recommendation no. 5 on “Combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims” (CRI (2000) 21, 27 April 2000). After reiterating the principles of respect for equality and non-discrimination between religions and recognising the great diversity intrinsic in the practice of Islam, it recommended that the governments of the member States “ensure that religious instruction in schools respects cultural pluralism and make provision for teacher training to this effect”.

33. In its fourth report on Turkey (CRI(2011)5, adopted on 10 December 2010) ECRI stated, in particular, as follows:

“Compulsory religious education

72. In examining compulsory religious education in schools in its third report on Turkey, ECRI observed that the situation was unclear: it noted that although the syllabus was officially described as covering all religions and designed to give pupils an idea of all religions, several sources described it as essentially providing instruction in the Muslim faith, and underlined that children belonging to recognised non-Muslim minorities could be exempted. ECRI observed that if the course indeed covered different religious cultures, there should be no reason to make it compulsory for Muslim children alone; conversely, if it was essentially designed to teach the Muslim religion, it should not be compulsory, in order to preserve children’s and their parents’ religious freedom. Accordingly, it urged the Turkish authorities to reconsider their approach and to take steps either to make this instruction optional for everyone or to revise its content so as to ensure that it genuinely covers all religious cultures and is no longer perceived as instruction in the Muslim religion.

73. No significant changes in practice have been reported since ECRI’s third report; numerous sources consider that the compulsory religious education delivered in state schools in accordance with Article 24 of the Constitution and Article 12 of Law no. 1739 on National Education still focuses essentially on instruction in the principles of the Sunni Muslim faith. The authorities have emphasised that school courses on religious culture and morals aim to provide a general insight into all religions while focusing more on the principles of the Muslim faith, and that it is legitimate to focus more on the religion practiced in a specific area...

74. ECRI ... emphasises the need to ensure that the convictions of members of all religious minority groups are respected in the education system, including the convictions of persons who do not want their children to receive any religious instruction at school.”

THE LAW

...

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE SECOND SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

48. The applicants Mansur Yalçın, Yüksel Polat and Hasan Kılıç submitted that the way in which the compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics were delivered in primary and secondary schools infringed their rights under the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

49. The Government contested that argument.

A. The parties’ submissions

1. The applicants

50. The applicants submitted that religious culture and ethics was not taught in an objective, critical and pluralist manner and hence did not satisfy the criteria which, in their view, had been established by the Court in the context of its interpretation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

51. Referring to the studies they had added to the file (see paragraphs 20-22 above), the applicants submitted that the experts were unanimous in finding that the teaching of the subject entitled “Religious culture and ethics” could not be said to satisfy the criteria of objectivity and pluralism or to respect the religious and philosophical convictions of Alevi parents. With regard to the changes made to the syllabus for that subject in 2011/12, these did not constitute a radical shift towards respect for certain principles such as impartiality and objectivity and were not sufficient to put an end to the violation of parents’ right to ensure that their children received an education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. The applicants also rejected the argument that the syllabus for religious culture and ethics had been drawn up using a supra‑denominational approach, taking the view that the syllabus was based wholly on a particular religious perspective and publicly endorsed the beliefs and traditions of the Sunni understanding of Islam. The Alevi faith, of which they were followers, was dealt with in a sub-category rather than as one of the main branches of Islam, an approach which undervalued it. Their faith was a fully-fledged branch of Islam, from both a faith-based and a theological perspective, in view of the fact that it had its own rites – for instance, the cem, the semah and the Muharram fast – and its own place of worship, the cemevi. Alevi children were caught in a stranglehold between the information they received at school and that which was passed on by their families. In addition, the changes made to the textbooks clearly fell short of the proposals made by the commission responsible for revising the content of the syllabus for religious culture and ethics.

52. In the applicants’ submission, the course also provided insufficient and inaccurate information on the Alevi faith. Lastly, in a number of schools, religious practices such as Salat or the learning of Arabic prayers by heart had reportedly been imposed on Alevi pupils.

2. The Government

53. In the Government’s submission, the Court, in its judgment in Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom (25 February 1982, Series A no. 48), had considered that compulsory religious instruction in State schools whose content was devised in an objective, critical and pluralist manner did not run the risk of indoctrination in a particular set of beliefs. In the present case, under both the old and the new syllabus for the subject in question, the textbooks covered three topics: religious culture, ethics, and national and spiritual values. The topics relating to ethics and spiritual values were common to all citizens. As to those relating to religious culture, they were dealt with on a supra-denominational basis and in an objective manner, and gave priority to the generally accepted interpretation of the Muslim religion without favouring any particular branch of Islam.

54. The syllabus for the classes in question was not apt to favour sectarian or denominational teaching methods, and the textbooks had been designed using a supra-denominational approach. The syllabus had therefore been devised in accordance with the principle of neutrality, without priority being given to the ideology of a particular religious group or faith, and in an objective, critical and pluralist manner.

55. The Government went on to state that, during the proceedings brought by the applicants in the Administrative Court, topics relating to the Alevi-Bektashi faith which took into account pupils’ level of maturity had been incorporated in the primary and secondary school syllabus. The new syllabus for religious culture and ethics included topics such as the principles of the Alevi faith, Alevi worship, mystical philosophy, understanding of morality and prayers, as well as Alevi rites such as the twelve religious services, the journey towards God, the Hizir and Muharram fasts, the four gates and forty levels, the three Sunnahs and the seven fardh. In the preparation of the textbooks in question and the choice of topics relating to the Alevi faith, worship and ethics and the content thereof, account had been taken of publications written by Alevis. Furthermore, following the introduction of the changes, the syllabus now included information on different faiths such as Alevism, Jafarism, Hanafism, Shafism, Shiism and other mystical movements.

56. Referring to the decision in the case of Lena and Anna-Nina Angeleni v. Sweden (no. 10491/83, Commission decision of 3 December 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 51, p. 41), the Government submitted that the provision of information on a single religion in particular (Islam, Christianity or Judaism) in the context of a course of religious studies could not be regarded as systematic indoctrination. Consequently, a religious culture and ethics syllabus which contained information on Islam should be regarded simply as providing religious teaching rather than a religious education.

57. The Government further stated that the syllabus for the classes in question was not designed to provide Islamic training. It had been drawn up in a pluralist and objective manner and in conformity with the principles set forth in the above-mentioned decision and, accordingly, did not interfere with parents’ right to bring up their children in accordance with their own philosophical and religious convictions. In addition, according to the directions issued to teachers concerning the implementation of the syllabus, the principle of secularism had to be respected and children could not be compelled to participate in religious practices or to copy or memorise verses and hadiths other than those featured in the textbooks. The various Muslim practices regarding prayer (namaz), ablutions (abdest), ablution of the whole body (gusul) and ablution without water (teyemmum), among others, were explained where necessary.

58. The Government added that it was not possible to teach a belief system in great detail within the framework of the primary or secondary school curriculum. Such an approach would risk changing the nature of the classes from a form of teaching to a form of education. Different followers of the same religion might have differing points of view with regard to interpretation and practice, and States were therefore required to put in place a system of religious teaching that was confined to providing information of a general nature.

59. The Government further stressed that the syllabus had been drawn up by the Ministry of Education, a fact which in their view guaranteed a scientific and learning-based approach. In devising the syllabus the Ministry of Education authorities had drawn on scientific data concerning Islam and the other religions and faiths. As to the information provided on the Muslim religion, the Ministry had refrained from any approach based on the thinking of a particular religious order or group. Instead, in preparing the syllabus, it had taken into consideration the points of view of the various religious groups in Turkey.

60. Furthermore, in response to the requests and expectations of Alevi citizens, a certain amount of information on the Alevi faith had been added to the syllabus for the optional religion classes (“Basic religious knowledge, Islam 1-2”). In order to meet the expectations of Alevi-Bektashi citizens and offer an overall perspective on religious issues, topics such as the Muharram fast could be included in the textbooks for these optional courses.

61. The Government also pointed out that Jewish and Christian pupils were exempted from the compulsory religious culture and ethics classes. The Supreme Council for Education had decided to introduce religion classes specifically for Jewish and Christian pupils at primary and secondary level.

62. Lastly, the Turkish education system provided appropriate means of ensuring respect for the applicants’ convictions, and the teaching provided comprised a number of elements designed to satisfy their demands. Accordingly, the applicants’ complaints were unfounded and there had been no violation of the Convention provisions on which they relied.

B. The Court’s assessment

63. As regards the general interpretation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court refers to the key principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, §§ 50‑54, Series A no. 23; Campbell and Cosans, cited above, §§ 36‑37; Valsamis v. Greece, 18 December 1996, §§ 25‑28, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑VI; Folgerø and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 15472/02, § 84, ECHR 2007-III; and Hasan and Eylem Zengin, cited above, §§ 47-55).

64. In the present case the Court observes at the outset that, in order to examine the syllabus and textbooks for religious culture and ethics classes under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, it is necessary, while avoiding any evaluation of their expediency, to have regard to the material situation that they sought and still seek to meet. Although in the past the Convention institutions have not found education providing information on religions to be contrary to the Convention, they scrutinised carefully beforehand whether pupils were obliged to take part in a form of religious worship or were exposed to any form of religious indoctrination. In the same context, the arrangements for exemption from the religious culture and ethics classes in issue in the present case are also a factor to be taken into account (see Hasan and Eylem Zengin, cited above, § 53).

65. The Court further notes that under the Constitution the three applicants’ children, who were attending primary and secondary schools at the relevant time, took part in the compulsory classes in religious culture and ethics from the fourth year of primary school until the end of their secondary schooling, in common with all children of their age attending State or private educational establishments. Only Jewish and Christian children were exempted from these classes. To date, there is no provision in the Turkish education system for any other exemptions, whether partial or total.

66. The Court observes that it is common ground between the parties that the content of the subject in question has undergone significant changes not just in the wake of the judgment in Hasan and Eylem Zengin (cited above, §§ 58-63), but also since the present application was lodged. In the proceedings before the Court, the parties submitted their observations taking into account the changes made. Accordingly, the Court will examine the present case not just in the light of the syllabus for religious culture and ethics as it was taught at the relevant time, but also, having regard to the parties’ positions, in the light of the changes that have taken place since the application was submitted, as this has some bearing on the assessment of the syllabus and textbooks for this subject complained of by the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, § 73, ECHR 2008).

67. The Court notes that, in the Government’s view, the part of the textbooks devoted to religious culture had been drafted using a supra‑denominational approach, was based on values such as the Koran and the Sunnah and did not favour any particular branch of Islam. The Government further submitted that the content of the textbooks supplied to teachers from the 2011/12 school year onwards had been devised taking into account the wishes expressed by the religious leaders of the Alevi-Bektashi community. In particular, the topics relating to the Alevi-Bektashi faith contained in the primary and secondary syllabuses took into account pupils’ level of maturity.

68. The Court notes that some changes were made to the syllabus for religious culture and ethics. It observes at the outset that these changes were primarily intended to facilitate the provision of information on the various faiths existing in Turkey, including the Alevi faith. However, the changes did not entail a real overhaul of the key components of the syllabus, which focuses primarily on knowledge of Islam as practised and interpreted by the majority of the population in Turkey. In that connection the Court notes that, although the applicants conceded that the textbooks in question henceforth contained information concerning their faith, they nevertheless maintained that it was presented, in both the old and the new syllabus, from a “Sunni” perspective, as a cultural and traditional concept rather than a branch of Islam in its own right. Furthermore, in the context of these lessons Alevi pupils received instruction on the main faiths solely from the standpoint of the Sunni interpretation of Islam. In addition, the fact that the surahs of the Koran and the practice of prayer (Salat) were regarded as elements to be acquired meant that children were liable to face a conflict of allegiances with the beliefs handed down by their parents. The principal Alevi rites (notably the cem and the semah) were presented as cultural activities or folk rituals rather than as religious rites, and the cemevi was not recognised as a place of worship in keeping with its status in the Alevi faith. Referring to the study carried out by A. Yaman, a member of the commission tasked with revising the content of the syllabus for this subject (see paragraph 22 above), the applicants contended that the changes made to the textbooks clearly fell short of the proposals made by that commission.

69. The Court thus observes that the key issue in dispute between the parties is the content of the teaching of Islam provided in the context of the compulsory classes. In the Government’s submission, notwithstanding the predominance of the Koran and the Sunnah, the syllabus for these classes was not such as to favour a sectarian or denominational type of instruction, and the corresponding textbooks had been prepared on the basis of a supra-denominational approach. The applicants, for their part, rejected that argument, maintaining that the Sunni approach predominated in the classes in question and that there were significant disparities between Sunni Islam and their faith, which had many features particular to it. In their view, it was because of the predominance of this approach that their children were caught in a stranglehold between the information provided at school and that handed down by their families.

70. In so far as the case concerns a debate surrounding Muslim theology, it is not for the Court to take a stance, as this would fall clearly outside the scope of its jurisdiction. In the context of such issues the Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that, in exercising its regulatory power in this sphere and in its relations with the various religions, denominations and beliefs, the State, as the ultimate guarantor of pluralism in a democratic society, including religious pluralism, has a duty to remain neutral and impartial (see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 78, ECHR 2000‑XI). It reaffirms that the role of the authorities is not to adopt measures favouring one interpretation of religion over another or aimed at forcing a divided community, or part of it, to come together under a single leadership against its own wishes (see Sinan Işık v. Turkey, no. 21924/05, § 45, ECHR 2010, and Serif v. Greece, no. 38178/97, § 53, ECHR 1999‑IX). The State’s duty of neutrality and impartiality excludes any discretion on its part to determine whether religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs are legitimate, and requires the State to ensure that conflicting groups tolerate each other, even where they originated in the same group (see, mutatis mutandis, Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, 26 September 1996, § 47, Reports 1996‑IV). Religious and philosophical beliefs concern individuals’ attitudes towards religion (see Sinan Işık, cited above, § 49), an area in which even subjective perceptions may be important in view of the fact that religions form a very broad dogmatic and moral entity which has or may have answers to every question of a philosophical, cosmological or moral nature (see, mutatis mutandis, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen, cited above, § 53).

71. That being said, the Court observes that it is clear from the case file (see paragraph 11 above) and from the Government’s observations (see paragraph 66 above) that the syllabus for religious culture and ethics is structured around the fundamental concepts of Islam, such as the Koran and the Sunnah. Admittedly, the fact that the syllabus gives greater prominence to Islam as practised and interpreted by the majority of the Turkish population than to the various minority interpretations of Islam and of other religions and philosophies cannot in itself be viewed as a departure from the principles of pluralism and objectivity amounting to indoctrination (see, mutatis mutandis, Folgerø and Others, cited above, § 89). Nevertheless, in view of the particular features of the Alevi faith compared with the Sunni understanding of Islam (see Hasan and Eylem Zengin, cited above, § 66), and in view also of the applicants’ submissions, which are borne out by several studies produced before the domestic courts (see paragraph 11 above) and before this Court (see paragraphs 19 to 21 above), the Court considers that the applicants could legitimately consider that the arrangements for teaching the subject in question are liable to create a conflict of allegiance for their children between their school and their own values, giving rise to a possible issue under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Folgerø, cited above, § 94).

72. In this connection the Court reiterates the Contracting Parties’ positive obligation under the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, which gives parents the right to demand from the State respect for their religious and philosophical convictions in the teaching of religion (see Hasan and Eylem Zengin, cited above, § 71). Where a Contracting State includes religious instruction in the curriculum for study, it is then necessary, in so far as possible, to avoid a situation where pupils face a conflict between the religious instruction given by the school and the religious or philosophical convictions of their parents.

73. The question thus arises whether the Turkish education system provides appropriate means in order to ensure that parents’ convictions are respected (see Hasan and Eylem Zengin, cited above, § 57).

74. In that connection the Government primarily stressed the fact that, following the judgment in Hasan and Eylem Zengin (cited above), and while the proceedings instituted by the applicants were in progress, topics relating to the Alevi-Bektashi faith had been incorporated into the syllabus for primary and secondary schools, taking into account pupils’ level of maturity. They added that, in line with the demands and expectations of Alevis, some information concerning the Alevi faith had also been included in the syllabus for optional religion classes (“Basic religious knowledge, Islam 1-2”).

75. The Court has difficulty discerning how it is possible to avoid a conflict between the religious instruction given by the pupils’ school and the religious or philosophical convictions of their parents, in the absence of an appropriate system of exemption arising from the compulsory nature of the religious culture and ethics classes. As the Government pointed out, even persons who follow the same religion may have differing views as regards interpretation and practice. Admittedly, parents may always enlighten and advise their children, exercise with regard to their children natural parental functions as educators, or guide their children on a path in line with the parents’ own religious or philosophical convictions (see Valsamis, cited above, § 31 in fine). Nevertheless, in the Court’s view, the disparity complained of by the applicants between, on the one hand, the approach taken by the syllabus and, on the other hand, the particular features of their faith when compared with the Sunni understanding of Islam is such that it could not easily be bridged to an adequate extent solely by means of the information concerning Alevi beliefs and practice inserted in the textbooks. As to the Government’s argument that more detailed information could be imparted to pupils in the context of the optional religion classes, the Court considers that this possibility does not exempt the State from its obligation to ensure that the teaching of such compulsory subjects satisfies the criteria of objectivity and pluralism while respecting religious or philosophical beliefs.

76. The Court further notes that the Turkish system offers the possibility of exemption from religious culture and ethics classes only to two categories of pupils with Turkish nationality, namely those whose parents are followers of the Christian or Jewish faith. As it stated in its judgment in Hasan and Eylem Zengin (cited above, § 74), this necessarily suggests that the teaching given in this subject is likely to lead these categories of pupils to face conflicts between the religious instruction provided by the school and their parents’ religious or philosophical convictions. In that judgment the Court, like ECRI, considered that this situation was open to criticism, in that “if this [was] indeed a course on the different religious cultures, there [was] no reason to make it compulsory for Muslim children alone. Conversely, if the course [was] essentially designed to teach the Muslim religion, it [was] a course on a specific religion and should not be compulsory, in order to preserve children’s and their parents’ religious freedoms” (see Hasan and Eylem Zengin, cited above, § 74; see also, at paragraph 33 above, the relevant parts of ECRI’s report). These considerations apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Moreover, the Court observes that in the aforementioned case it stressed, with regard to religious education in Europe, that in spite of the variety of teaching methods, almost all of the member States offered at least one route by which pupils could opt out of religious education classes (by providing an exemption mechanism or the option of attending a lesson in a substitute subject, or by giving pupils the choice of whether or not to sign up to a religious studies class) (ibid., §§ 34 and 71). However, the Court notes that the Turkish education system offers very limited scope for exemption. The Court also found that the procedure for exemption was likely to subject pupils’ parents to a heavy burden and to the necessity of disclosing their religious or philosophical convictions in order to have their children exempted from the lessons in religion (ibid., §§ 75-76).

77. Consequently, notwithstanding the significant changes made in 2011/12 to the syllabus for religious culture and ethics and to the corresponding textbooks, it appears that the education system of the respondent State still does not provide appropriate means in order to ensure that parents’ convictions are respected. In particular, the Court notes that the Turkish education system offers no appropriate options for the children of parents who have a religious or philosophical conviction other than that of Sunni Islam, and that the very limited procedure for exemption is likely to subject pupils’ parents to a heavy burden and to the necessity of disclosing their religious or philosophical convictions in order to have their children exempted from the lessons in religion. There has therefore been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case.

...

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 41 AND 46 OF THE CONVENTION

81. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

82. The relevant parts of Article 46 of the Convention read as follows:

“1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.

2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.

...”

83. The applicants did not submit any claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court finds it unnecessary to make an award under this head.

84. The Court further observes that it has found a violation of the Convention in the present case on account in particular of the fact that, with regard to the teaching of religious studies, the education system of the respondent State still does not provide appropriate means in order to ensure that parents’ convictions are respected. This finding in itself implies that the violation of the applicants’ rights as guaranteed by the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 stems, as in the case of Hasan and Eylem Zengin (§ 84), from a structural problem. Accordingly, the Court stresses the need to make the necessary means available without delay, in accordance with the principles set forth in paragraphs 76 and 77 above and without pupils’ parents being obliged to disclose their religious or philosophical convictions in order to make use of them (see Folgerø, cited above, § 98, and Hasan and Eylem Zengin, cited above, § 75).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

...

3. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the above-mentioned three applicants;

...

Done in French, and notified in writing on 16 September 2014 pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Stanley NaismithGuido Raimondi
RegistrarPresident

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judges A. Sajó, N. Vučinić and E. Kūris is annexed to this judgment.

G.R.A.

S.H.N.

JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES SAJÓ, VUČINIĆ AND KŪRIS

1. The majority found that there was no need to examine whether there had been a violation of Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention and of the latter Article taken in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention and with Article 2 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention. We respectfully disagree. These alleged violations fell to be examined on their own merits. The judgments in Folgerø and Others v. Norway ([GC], no. 15472/02, ECHR 2007‑III) and Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey (no. 1448/04 9 October 2007, in which, by the way, a violation of Article 14 was not even alleged by the applicants), to which a brief reference is made in paragraph 80 of the judgment, are not decisions of principle but of circumstantial practicality and do not have the force of a precedent for omitting to examine the claims in the present case. Earlier judgments can serve as binding precedents for future cases only where the issues raised by the applicants were examined and determined, and not where the Court refused to examine them.

2. Unlike the majority, we believe that there are additional – and more decisive – issues underlying the discrimination with regard to the syllabus. The much broader problem of alleged Alevi discrimination in the Turkish education system which the Court was called upon to examine, and should have examined, in the present case is of essentially the same nature as the one which the Court was asked to examine but declined to deal with in Hasan and Eylem Zengin, cited above. The very fact that this issue persists testifies to the need to examine it and not to turn a blind eye to the alleged violations of Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. The situation requires examination under these Articles because the applicants have made a well‑substantiated claim that the Turkish education system treats Alevism merely as a culture and that their religion is therefore relegated to an inferior status in relation to the majority faith in the religious education syllabus. The Alevi faith has not been designated as a distinct religion with the associated right, granted to Christian and Jewish pupils, to opt out of compulsory religious education. Neither is the Alevi faith treated with a respect equal to that enjoyed by other branches of Islam. The majority’s analysis under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention does not address this underlying religious discrimination issue, but only considers the content of the current religious education syllabus.

3. In view of this, and if the situation regarding the religious education of Alevis (or other religious minorities or non-believers) in Turkish schools remains as it is, it is not unlikely that this renewed refusal to examine the above-mentioned alleged violations will engender further applications to this Court concerning the same issue from persons finding themselves in situations similar to the one at hand.

4. The above considerations apply to all the applicants in the present case who are listed in paragraph 1 of the judgment to the same extent as to the three applicants referred to in point 1 of the operative part.

[1] The semah can be described as a set of mystical and aesthetic movements performed in a group in rhythmic harmony. They constitute one of the twelve religious services.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy